1. Small Business
Debbie Tronic, Senior Procurement Analyst March 18, 2008
Defense Acquisition Regulations System

2. FAR Case 2006-032 Small Business Size Rerepresentation
Status:
Interim rule published 7/5/2007 – 72 FR 36852
Effective 6/30/2007
Public comments received – Final rule being developed
Source: SBA final rule published 11/15/06 (71 FR 66434)
Purpose:
To improve the accuracy of size status reporting over the life of certain prime contracts

3. FAR Case 2006-032 Small Business Size Rerepresentation
Synopsis:
Requires a concern that represented it was small at time of award to rerepresent its status –
Within 60 to 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of a long-term contract and within 60 to 120 days prior to the exercise date in the contract for any option thereafter
Within 30 days after a merger or acquisition that does not require novation, or within 30 days after modification of the contract to include , if the merger or acquisition occurred prior to inclusion of the clause in the contract
Within 30 days after execution of a novation agreement, or within 30 days after modification of the contract to include , if the novation agreement was executed prior to inclusion of the clause in the contract

4. FAR Case 2006-032 Small Business Size Rerepresentation
Synopsis (con’t):
Requires databases be revised to reflect the rerepresented size status from that point forward
If small rerepresents that it is now other than small, from that point forward, the agency may no longer include the value of options exercised or orders issued against the contract in its small business prime contracting goal achievements
Long-term contract is any contract more than 5 years in duration
Required to rerepresent whether or not there is a change in size status
Other than small permitted, but not required, to rerepresent

5. FAR Case 2006-032 Small Business Size Rerepresentation
Important to note:
Rerepresentation does not change the terms and conditions of the contract
This rule applies only to prime contracts
When as a result of a protest, a concern that rerepresented itself as small is found to be other than small, the contracting officer is not required to terminate the contract

6. FAR Case 2006-032 Small Business Size Rerepresentation
Applicability:
Applies to solicitations issued and contracts awarded on or after June 30, 2007
Also applies to contracts awarded prior to June 30, 2007
Must modify all long-term contracts awarded to small businesses prior to June 30, 2007 to include
Must modify other contracts (those that are not long-term contracts) awarded to small businesses prior to June 30, 2007 to include , at the time that you are otherwise exercising an option

7. FAR Case 2006-034 Socioeconomic Program Parity
Status:
Proposed rule published 3/10/2008 – 73 FR 12699
Closing date for public comments – 5/9/2008
Source: SBA initiated
Purpose: To ensure that the FAR reflects SBA’s interpretation of the Small Business Act and SBA’s interpretation of its regulations with regard to the relationship among the Small Business Programs

8. FAR Case 2006-034 Socioeconomic Program Parity
Synopsis:
There is no order of precedence among the 8(a), HUBZone or Service-disabled Veteran-owned (SDVO) small business programs
If a requirement has been accepted by SBA under the 8(a) Program, it must remain in the 8(a) Program unless SBA agrees to its release
For acquisitions exceeding $100,000, the contracting officer:
Must consider making award under the 8(a), HUBZone or SDVO small business programs (either sole source or set-aside) before proceeding with a small business set-aside
After considering making award under those programs, a contracting officer may proceed with a small business set-aside, unless the criteria for setting the acquisition aside for HUBZone small businesses are met, in which case it must be a HUBZone set-aside

9. FAR Case 2006-034 Socioeconomic Program Parity
Synopsis (con’t):
Acquisitions between $3,000 and $100,000
The contracting officer has discretionary authority to award to HUBZone SBs, 8(a) Program participants, or SDVOSBs
Unlike acquisitions over $100,000, it is not mandatory that a contracting officer set the acquisition aside for HUBZone small businesses before setting it aside for other small businesses
SBA believes progress in fulfilling the various small business goals is a factor to consider in making a decision as to which program to use for the acquisition

10. On the Horizon 2006-005 HUBZone Program Revisions Source: SBA
Purpose: to implement in the FAR changes in SBA’s HUBZone Program regulations resulting from the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000
Changes in SBA regulation (intent to increase opportunities for qualified HUBZone concerns):
Requires that at least 35% of the employees that work on the contract live in a HUBZone
Increases percent of work that must be performed by a HUBZone concern to 50% for general and specialty construction, but permits subcontractors that are qualified HUBZone concerns to count toward the percentage
HUBZone concern must “certify” at time of offer and at time of award that it is HUBZone

11. On the Horizon 2005-040 Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System
Source: OFPP/SBA
Purpose: To implement in the FAR, OFPP directed use of eSRS for individual and summary subcontract reporting – replaces SF 294 and SF 295

12. FAR Small Business Team
Established by OFPP on March 2, 2007
Purpose:
Focus on small business issues
Provide greater consistency between the regulations and more seamless direction and guidance through concurrent SBA and FAR rule-making

13. FAR Small Business Team
DoD team members
Debbie Tronic – OSD DARS (Team Chair)
Lee Renna – OSD OSBP
Mary Reynolds – AF OSBP
Paul Gardner – Army OSBP (Alternate for OSD OSBP)
Rachel Ballen – Army Material Command
Mary Seabolt – DCMA OSBP (Rotational)
Civilian Agencies represented
DHS - NASA - GSA
SBA - DOE – Dept of Commerce
OFPP Advisor

14. Government Property
Mark Gomersall, Senior Procurement Analyst March 18, 2008
Defense Acquisition Regulations System

15. FAR Case 2004-025 Government Property
Purpose:
To simplify procedures, clarify language, and eliminate obsolete requirements related to the management and disposition of Government property in the possession of contractors.
History:
Proposed rule published 9/19/2005 – 70 FR 54878
287 Public comments received from 40 Respondents
Final rule published 5/15/2007 – 72 FR 27364
Well it only took the better part of 2 decades, but we finally have a property rule that both the Government and Industry can live with.
This rule is a complete rewrite of Part 45 of the FAR. As you may remember, in the 1990’s there was a big push to change the way the Government conducts our business by leveraging more commercial practices. This rule accomplishes just that by removing the old 1950’s obsolete requirements related to the management and disposition of Government property in the possession of contractors.
Instead, Contractors are now encouraged to utilize Industry leading standards for property management that include strategies and processes that are both quantifiably and qualitatively demonstrated to be top performing within a given industry.

16. FAR Case 2004-025 Government Property
Background
During the 1990’s, the Department of Defense initiated a complete rewrite of FAR Part 45. The effort reflected the general consensus that adoption of more typically commercial business practices would not only attract more commercial firms to the marketplace but also result in significant savings of acquisition dollars.
The legalities and complexities that characterize Government property management drew out differences between the Government and industry parties, resulting in suspension of most of the project. Only the rewrite of Subpart 45.6 was published as a final rule at the time.
This rule completes the task of rewriting the rest of Part 45 and its associated clauses.
As I said, this has been a long term effort, but we have finally completed the rewrite of part 45 with the exception of the language regarding the TITLE TO GOV”T PROPERTY which I will discuss later.
Previous attempts to rewrite Part 45 in the 90’s were unsuccessful for a number of reasons – most of which dealt with fears of losing the contractual property controls, many of which were established in the 1950’s. As a result, prior to the current rule, only Subpart 45.6 was published.

17. FAR Case 2004-025 Government Property
Synopsis:
The rewritten FAR Part 45 implements a policy that improves the management of Government property while fostering efficiency, flexibility, innovation and creativity by adopting property practices typically used in the commercial arena while, continuing to protect the Government’s interest.
The rule complements the use of current processes and technologies such as Enterprise Resource Planning, relational databases, unique item identification, radio frequency tags, bar-coding, and the general trend toward commercialization of components and equipment.
The rule simplifies requirements on contractors by reducing the number of FAR clauses from nineteen clauses, to three overarching clauses.
So our task in rewriting Part 45 was to allay the fears of the Gov’t property community and ensure that the necessary contractual requirements are in place to protect the Gov’t’s interests while moving toward practices used in the commercial world.
As such, this rule simplifies the Gov’t property contractual requirements by reducing the 19 former FAR clauses down to 3 overarching clauses.

18. FAR Case 2004-025 Government Property
Synopsis (Con’t):
The rule deletes the current FAR text on facilities contracts and the associated clauses.
The rule deletes the special tooling and special test equipment language and associated clauses.
So, what else does this rule do?
In addition to updating Part 45, this rule also removes language and clauses dealing with special tooling and special test equipment, and further deletes the term facilities contract as a specific contract type.
This does not mean that facilities contracts do not exist. These contracts are merely a form of service contracts for property management.
Likewise, the CAAC and DARC determined that while special tooling and special test equipment are still necessary, they may be obtained under contract line items.

19. FAR Case 2004-025 Government Property
Issues:
Title to government property
Suitability for use of government property furnished in “as-is” condition
Responsibility and liability
Generating and maintaining records and reports of Government property.
Disposal and abandonment of government property
Contractor Plans and Property Management Systems
All right, so what make this rule so complicated?
Title - state tax and liability issues - fundamentally retain the existing FAR language.
Suitability – agree that Contractors should be allowed to determine whether GFP is suitable for use after receipt and installation - mitigate risk for “as-is” property by pre-inspection.
Responsibility and Liability – Number of comments on revocation – How to make determination – Who should determine schedule
Records – Who is responsible for maintaining the official gov't property records - Whether or not records must include actual unit acquisition costs or estimates, and - Whether the gov't should specify a specific recording or numbering system
Disposal and Abandonment – How much oversight should be retained by the government for disposition of contractor inventory and the risk associated with possible improper disposition of sensitive property or property requiring demilitarization - The order of priority for disposal of contractor-acquired property, and - The submittal of inventory disposal schedules.
Kr Plans and Prop Mgt - desire to allow the utilization of commercial property management systems - balance between overly restrictive clause language while continuing to protect the Government’s interest
Applicability:
Applies to solicitations issued and contracts awarded on or after 6/14/2007

20. On the Horizon
DFARS Part 245 rewrite

21. FAR Acquisition Implementation Team
DoD team members
Jeritta Parnell – OSD DARS (Team Chair)
Felisha Hitt, Deputy, DCMA
Eric Saindon, DCMA
Lou Becker, NASA
Patricia Letzler, DCAA
Patrick M. Sullivan, HHS
Ed Chambers, EPA
Jerry Hanley, DOE
Fronzetta Sutton, DOE
Mark Gomersall, DoD (DARC Case Manager)
Expert Advisors
Tom Ruckdaschel, OSD
Michael T. Showers, NASA
John Kesler, DCMA
Douglas N. Goetz, DAU